Reporting, Disclosure & Frameworks
Consistency (GHG Protocol principle)
One of the five GHG Protocol accounting principles: use consistent methods and boundaries over time so emissions data can be compared meaningfully.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
Consistency is one of the five core principles of the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard (alongside relevance, completeness, transparency and accuracy). It requires organisations to apply consistent accounting methods, boundaries and data over time, so that emissions trends can be tracked and compared; any changes to methods or boundaries must be documented and justified.
References
the five principles and the consistency requirement
Overview
What it means
A greenhouse gas inventory is only useful across years if like is compared with like; consistency disciplines methodological choices.
How it is used
Preparers of corporate inventories apply the principle when setting base years, recalculating baselines after structural changes, and selecting emission factors, and auditors test it during verification.
Why it matters
Without consistency, reported reductions can reflect accounting changes rather than real decarbonisation, undermining target tracking and disclosure credibility.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.